New Climate Models Even More Wrong

[Buzz]

Had you bothered to read the linked article, Spencer shows the more recent graphs.

Translation:

I am greatly disturbed by this chart, (which is fully updated with real data), by Dr. Spenser, that I feel the need to make attacks with name calling as MY way of arguing against it.

The update is the post.

All three of you guys completely missed the point of my question.

If Jack is going to post something because it is updated then why is the graph posted of the old data? Why must we go to the link to see that new data when the new graph could have just as easily been posted? And how many people who just quickly read these kind of posts and not the links incorrectly thought that that was the updated graph?

I think it is purposefully for maximum propaganda effect and to increase clicks to the link.

Oh.... and I don't think this is purposefully done by Jack because I am convinced that almost all of Jack's posts like this one are written by someone else.

 

[Jack Hays]

All three of you guys completely missed the point of my question.

If Jack is going to post something because it is updated then why is the graph posted of the old data? Why must we go to the link to see that new data when the new graph could have just as easily been posted? And how many people who just quickly read these kind of posts and not the links incorrectly thought that that was the updated graph?

I think it is purposefully for maximum propaganda effect and to increase clicks to the link.

Oh.... and I don't think this is purposefully done by Jack because I am convinced that almost all of Jack's posts like this one are written by someone else.

Why must you go to the link? Forum rules. I have been dinged more than once for including too much pasted material, so I try to avoid that transgression.
I could not care less about clicks to any link.
The truth is my most effective propaganda.
Is this what you were looking for?

Well it’s a couple of years later and the El Nino heat has mostly gone from the climate system. What does the model-observational comparison look like now?
This graph, like the earlier one above, compares the HadCRUT4 surface temperature average (black line) against the CMIP5 mean (red line). The pink band shows the 1-sigma (67%) distribution and the tan band extends out to the 2-sigma (95%) distribution. The outer yellow bands show the lower and upper 2.5th percentiles. The lines are positioned so all models and observations are centered on a 1961-1990 zero mean. The model runs follow the RCP4.5 scenario and extend out to 2050.
Let’s zoom in on the post-1950 interval.
The HadCRUT4 series ends in 2018, which is the last complete year. Temperatures in 2018 (+0.60C) are back down to about where they were in 2014 (+0.58C). We’ll know in February or March where 2019 ends up.
The worry back in 2014 was that the Hadley (black) line had dropped below the 97.5th percentile envelope of the CMIP5 model runs. The El Nino pushed it almost all the way up to the mean, but only temporarily. It’s now back to the edge of the yellow band, meaning it’s skirting the bottom of the 95 percent confidence interval.
The big issue is not whether warming has “paused” or not, it’s how it compares to model projections. RCP4.5 is considered a medium, plausible projection. But it’s already pulling away from the observations.

 

[Buzz]

Why must you go to the link? Forum rules.

There is no rule that prevents you from posting the updated data in the first place.

I have been dinged more than once for including too much pasted material, so I try to avoid that transgression.

Seems to me you are still doing it as I regularly see you posting much bigger posts that this. And they are sometimes in 2 or 3 different threads at the same time.

I could not care less about clicks to any link.
The truth is my most effective propaganda.

:lamo

Is this what you were looking for?

NO!! Damn Jack... I personally don't need to see the updated data because I have literally seen it hundreds of times. I want to know why when you post about updated data does it almost never include the updated data? Is this really so hard to understand?

 

[Jack Hays]

There is no rule that prevents you from posting the updated data in the first place.



Seems to me you are still doing it as I regularly see you posting much bigger posts that this. And they are sometimes in 2 or 3 different threads at the same time.



:lamo



NO!! Damn Jack... I personally don't need to see the updated data because I have literally seen it hundreds of times. I want to know why when you post about updated data does it almost never include the updated data? Is this really so hard to understand?

I post the link. Check it out or don't, but don't involve me in your tantrums.

 

[Buzz]

I post the link. Check it out or don't, but don't involve me in your tantrums.

Yeah... you post exacly what you have been given to post.

And it is really pathetic.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yeah... you post exacly what you have been given to post.

And it is really pathetic.

Wrong as usual. But in a way I'm flattered. Posting decisions are all mine, and they must be pretty effective to get such a rise out of you.

 

[charliebrown]

I post the link. Check it out or don't, but don't involve me in your tantrums.

Hello Jack. models are just that, models. I appreciate data as compared to models as do scientist. They are constantly taking data and back tracking their models for a more accurate future model.

The models state that temperature is going up and the data represents that the temperature is going up, albeit at a less drastic rate. Your post makes me feel alot better so I do not have to worry about the existential threat from climate change.

I will have to say this. Being a conservative should absolutely be supporting efficiency using less natural resources period. If you are a conservative driving a prius to conserve gas, I commend you. I know many conservative people who work diligently to conserve energy. Keep up the good work.

Fossil fuels are so dirty in so many ways that I do not even want to get into the environmental impact of it. Burning less of it is a benefit for some many other reasons other than CO2.
We have lost that polution angle and that is the angle that will get everyone agreeing to save OUR AIR and OUR WATER.

 

[Buzz]

Wrong as usual. But in a way I'm flattered. Posting decisions are all mine, and they must be pretty effective to get such a rise out of you.

Yes... posting decisions are yours. But most of the posts are written by someone else. Are they not?

 

[Jack Hays]

Hello Jack. models are just that, models. I appreciate data as compared to models as do scientist. They are constantly taking data and back tracking their models for a more accurate future model.

The models state that temperature is going up and the data represents that the temperature is going up, albeit at a less drastic rate. Your post makes me feel alot better so I do not have to worry about the existential threat from climate change.

I will have to say this. Being a conservative should absolutely be supporting efficiency using less natural resources period. If you are a conservative driving a prius to conserve gas, I commend you. I know many conservative people who work diligently to conserve energy. Keep up the good work.

Fossil fuels are so dirty in so many ways that I do not even want to get into the environmental impact of it. Burning less of it is a benefit for some many other reasons other than CO2.
We have lost that polution angle and that is the angle that will get everyone agreeing to save OUR AIR and OUR WATER.

I'm not conservative and I regard fossil fuels as one of mankind's foremost blessings.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes... posting decisions are yours. But most of the posts are written by someone else. Are they not?

When expert views and peer-reviewed research are available, it makes sense to introduce them into the forum.

 

[flogger]

I'm not conservative and I regard fossil fuels as one of mankind's foremost blessings.

I envy your low fuel bills due to your commitment to gas fracking. A very clean and cheap option making your costs per KwH a quarter of those in 'renewables' obsessed Denmark. Here in the UK our anarchists managed to get our gas fracking industry shut down despite us sitting on a centurys worth of it

 

[Buzz]

When expert views and peer-reviewed research are available, it makes sense to introduce them into the forum.

That's not what I am talking about. Your posts... the part entered into the forum to format and write each post is written by someone else. You do not actually do the writing or coding for most of it.

What's the matter, Jack? Can't admit you don't write most of the propaganda you post around here?

 

[Jack Hays]

That's not what I am talking about. Your posts... the part entered into the forum to format and write each post is written by someone else. You do not actually do the writing or coding for most of it.

What's the matter, Jack? Can't admit you don't write most of the propaganda you post around here?

I don't write the linked text, that's obvious and that's why it's linked. The rest I write. I don't see your point.

 

[charliebrown]

I'm not conservative and I regard fossil fuels as one of mankind's foremost blessings.

I agree with you about fossil fuels, but you have to admit before that it was whale fat!!! Fossil fuel will get replaced with solar(FREE) Wind(FREE) and efficiency (FREE)

 

[Jack Hays]

I agree with you about fossil fuels, but you have to admit before that it was whale fat!!! Fossil fuel will get replaced with solar(FREE) Wind(FREE) and efficiency (FREE)

I doubt it.


The global climate alarmism propaganda campaign has failed – fossil fuels have priority

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin While climate alarmist propagandists in the developed nations have for decades been focusing their attention on the contrived alarmist politics of “settled science” and “supporting the narrative” idiocy as well as “climate denier” denigration of those challenging the scientific absurdity of this alarmism campaign global energy reality was being taken…

20 hours ago November 18, 2019 in Energy.

 

[Buzz]

I don't write the linked text, that's obvious and that's why it's linked. The rest I write. I don't see your point.

Really Jack? You are saying you write all the code and formatting... the numerous color changes, font changes, size changes, embedded links, picture formating and linking, etc... plus all the text you cut and paste? And you can write all that coding in sometimes literally seconds. Oh, and you have a different and specific style for each site as well.

:lamo

I find that very hard to believe.

 

[Jack Hays]

Really Jack? You are saying you write all the code and formatting... the numerous color changes, font changes, size changes, embedded links, picture formating and linking, etc... plus all the text you cut and paste? And you can write all that coding in sometimes literally seconds. Oh, and you have a different and specific style for each site as well.

:lamo

I find that very hard to believe.

No. I said the opposite. Those are in the links.

 

[Buzz]

No. I said the opposite. Those are in the links.

Where in the link is this professionally written and sometimes lengthy code?

Show me where you cut and pasted this:



Sorry it is so small but the forum automatically downsized it.

 

[Jack Hays]

Where in the link is this professionally written and sometimes lengthy code?

Show me where you cut and pasted this:

View attachment 67268473

Sorry it is so small but the forum automatically downsized it.

Provide the post number.

If it's my #18 the top line is the link.

 

[Buzz]

Provide the post number.

If it's my #18 the top line is the link.

Yes, that is post #18. And I know where the link is. I want to know where you got the rest of it. All of it is needed to get post #18 to look the way it does. Where did you copy it from?

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, that is post #18. And I know where the link is. I want to know where you got the rest of it. All of it is needed to get post #18 to look the way it does. Where did you copy it from?

It's all from the link.

 

[Buzz]

It's all from the link.

Where exactly?

 

[Jack Hays]

Where exactly?

Click the link and you'll see it all, and more.

 

[Buzz]

Click the link and you'll see it all, and more.

Come on Jack. Tell us your secret. How do you post so many heavily formatted and full of pictures and links posts in minutes or even seconds?

 

[Jack Hays]

Come on Jack. Tell us your secret. How do you post so many heavily formatted and full of pictures and links posts in minutes or even seconds?

It's not difficult. From start to finish this link took less than a minute.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Study Says Fracking is Saving Families $2,500 Annually, Significantly Lowering Greenhouse Gas Emissions[/h][FONT=&quot]Research & Commentary by Tim Benson, The Heartland Institute A report released in October 2019 by the White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) estimates increased oil and natural gas production from hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) saves American families $203 billion annually on gasoline and electricity bills. This breaks down to $2,500 in savings per family…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]